Scurlock v. Penthouse International Entertainment Consultants IEC

Filing 3

ORDER, granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charles Scurlock. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/2/2015. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES SCURLOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-338 JPG/DGW

PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANTS
IEC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
2). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a
case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The test for determining if an
action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in
support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247
(7th Cir. 1983). When assessing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire into the
merits of the plaintiff’s claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Court is satisfied from plaintiff’s affidavit that he is indigent. Furthermore, the Court does not find
anything in the file to indicate that this action is frivolous or malicious. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 2). The Court notes, however,
that should it become apparent that the action is frivolous or malicious at any time in the future, it may dismiss
the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 2, 2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE